Forums.NitroExpress.com

The gentlemen that produced the photos above done some testing, this is their report.:

michael458

I have what I think is going to be a very interesting terminal report for you this morning. Some 2-3 weeks ago CCMDoc sent his Sabatti in 450/400 to me for some test work with the 400 CEB BBW #13 Solids. Our goals were to of course check for stability of the 400 #13, penetration depth and normal terminal test work. Well I went some steps further as it began to interest me in seeing how the CEBs shot at 50 yds, and regulation, as I had never done that, so it peaked my interest for a time, but it soon wore me down for sure.

Now, several things to report on this rifle--others, can't say, but this particular one. One of the big questions it seems with the Sabatti is how they tend to regulate by filing the inside of the crown, and that stability thereafter. Something about this just does not seem right to me. The crown is very important for stability of the bullet in my opinion. While playing with many many different loads, powders, and bullets for the Sabatti there was a trend that continued throughout every single test--Right barrel would shoot slightly left of target, left barrel 4-6 inches to the right and most of the time low regardless of bullet, Woodleighs, CEBs, Swifts, everything. And in each test I saw some instability at 50 yds with the left barrel with all the bullets, not quite hitting square!

Now during the tests we discussed having the scope on, and how this can change the regulation of a double. As consistent as this rifle was shooting, I had my doubts to this, but what the hell do I know? Next to nothing about these things! Sam was here on Tuesday and we put the gun through the paces from about 10 am or so to well after 5 pm just about as hard as we could go. Now contrary to my teasing CCMDoc when I put the scope on, I really did not use JB Weld for the mount, I did not even loctite the mount screws! Not my rifle, I did not want to do anything ugly! During Sam and I test work Tuesday, the scope worked it's way loose, rounds were flying everywhere! HEH HEH....... We completed terminals, removed the scope and started shooting irons. Sam did all this work, as he is a mighty fine iron shooter. As for the different bullets and different loads, there was zero difference in regulation. Right barrel still shot slightly left, Left Barrel shot WAY right. Exactly the same as with the scope. Difference was only that the irons had not been sighted in, and everything was 6-7 inches high at 50 yds, that was all. On this gun, no regulation issues with a scope.

Now, this is not to say the rifle did not shoot with anything. It shot the Hornady Factory loads very very well. The 400 DGX would group 1.5 to 2 inches Right/Left at 50 yds, and the Hornady DGS about the same, and in the same place as the DGX with both irons and scope. So this gun would be ready to go with the Hornady Factory loads, no doubt.

I have something here that I think will be very revealing just taken this morning for this post.

As you see in the first photo the egg shaped crown of the left barrel.

However on this photo, taken a bit closer, you can actually see where some of the rifling has been removed completely by this process on the left side, left barrel.

With the Factory Hornady and it's very small meplat, the instability started to show between the left and right barrels.

Now, I must say at this point, the Hornady DGS done FAR better than I expected of it. In some cases we got deep penetration far beyond where I expected. It barely even has a meplat as well, but this bullet did extremely well in my opinion.

On the left side, left barrel we shot 3 rds of the 400 Hornady DGS. Two went completely unstable at 30 inches, hit the bottom of the box, one had to have scrapped a nail in the bottom which damaged it. One of the 3 managed somehow to stabilize, penetrated extremely deep into the second box, but I could only give it 65 inches of "Straight" penetration. It went further, but was not quite stabilized. Without doubt, 2 out of 3 were totally unstable.

The right barrel showed far more stability. One of the DGS from the right barrel started moving up and left until it left the box at around 64 inches. It started loosing stability at 50 inches and migrating. We lost that one. In fact of the 5 fired we seemed to have lost two of them.

In summary!

One of the main reasons that CCMDoc sent the rifle was the concern about the way Sabatti had regulated, by removing the inside of the crown, kicking the bullet to the right. That for sure works, as it kicks every bullet on the market to the right from the left side.

Stability? There is no doubt in my mind that stability of all bullets fired in the left barrel is effected by this. You can see it in most all of the targets fired at 50 yards. Stability is an issue during terminals with that left barrel.

I know little about regulation of these things, but I believe that had the left barrel been left as is that this rifle might have regulated far better with other bullets than the Hornady. I could be wrong, but no matter what bullet (Other Than the Hornady Factory ammo) the left barrel kicked them to the right 4-6 inches from the right barrel.

This gun is regulated well with the Hornady ammo, both DGS and DGX. There is no issues with that, and in my opinion would do fine for anything buffalo/hippo and down. The DGX performed very good in it's role as an expanding bullet, and the DGS was good enough for buffalo for sure. Personally I would have no issues using the rifle and ammo in that role.

The gun is a very nice gun, nice wood, very tight, no mechanical problems that I experienced or could see. Just that left egg shaped crown is the only issue I see with them.

I was scheduled to send it back to CCMDoc on Monday, but I am going to keep it just long enough to do one more test, Sam is making some bullets he thinks we should try in it first, so CCMDoc if that is a problem, do let me know.

That sums things up as I see it, I am sure Sam might want to add, as well as CCMDoc too!

Final Summary of tests.:

Well the above statement would be fairly accurate in my opinion. I really wished that the rifle would have just done everything perfect and I could have had a better report for it, but things are what they are, as CCMDoc has said. This rifle was very tight, remained so throughout the shooting and test work, mechanically no issues at all. All my loads used Federal 215s and several different powders, including RL25, RL22, Lot's of IMR 4831, H-4831, and IMR 4350. Both barrels were very consistent with all powders, loads, and bullets, they just were not right/left compatible.

It's for sure regulated with Hornady Factory Ammo, which is shot both solids and DGX very well, and they are right/left compatible.

This regulation by filing the inside of the crown, does without doubt, cause stability issues both in flight, and more so in terminal penetration. It does have an effect, end of story.

On this rifle there was no effect between having a scope on, or having it off. The Hornady Factory ammo remained regulated with the scope and without, and all other bullets showed the same effects, scope or no scope. Scope on this particular rifle was of no consequence at all.

Personally, while this particular rifle as it is would do fine with the Hornady ammo on buffalo and such, I would have great concerns about other rifles regulated this way. If they will not shoot a proper flat nose solid, such as the North Fork or CEB BBW#13, at least these bullets are capable of "self-stabilization" during terminal penetration, lesser bullets cannot self stabilize. I would have concerns using these in the field with anything of a serious nature. Sam has concerns about the large amounts of bearing surface on the Hornady DGS, and no doubt it is a hard bullet. So there are many things to consider in this matter as I see it.

I also cannot see this method of regulation as being a proper thing to do. Take a look at the photos posted, it's rather evident.

Wish I had something better for all of you. Sorry!

Michael

Next the owners report on these findings.: